Missing the "Object" part of OOP

[TheAntipop]

I recently completed my Associates Degree in programming from a local community college.  I've been exposed to a few object oriented languages, including C++, Java, Visual Basic, and PHP.  The thing that bothers me is that the whole concept of objects seemed kind of glossed over in the curriculum. 

 

I mean, I obviously know what they are and how they function, but we hardly used them at all in practice.  Of course, I frequently used objects and classes from the API for common procedures.  For example, in Java to parse a text field I might use Integer.parseInt( jtextfield.getText() ).  Or to create the GUI there was always a whole series of GUI objects instantiated (i.e. randomJTextField = new JTextField() followed by the definition of its properties). 

 

But we very rarely created our own classes and objects.  Normally, the whole program was written in one class, and we would write methods (or functions) to handle different tasks and call them when needed.  As a result, my whole concept of objects is a bit fuzzy.  The few times we used them, I found the whole instantiation of objects to be somewhat confusing. 

 

Having earned a programming degree without utilizing the Object aspect of Object Oriented Programming (which seems kind of important), I can't help but feel a bit cheated.  My current view of objects is that they are not necessary to use, they are just a way of organizing your program and making it easier to re-use code.  Is this wrong? 

 

Do programming jobs out in the real world place high importance on using objects?  I am about to write a resume and start job hunting, but I am kind of concerned about my weakness in this area.  Any advice would be appreciated.

[Mchl]

I can totally understand you. This was how I felt for years, before something 'clicked' in my head and I finally understood why OOP can be useful.

Browse the web for "Design patterns". It explains a lot.

[KevinM1]

I recently completed my Associates Degree in programming from a local community college.  I've been exposed to a few object oriented languages, including C++, Java, Visual Basic, and PHP.  The thing that bothers me is that the whole concept of objects seemed kind of glossed over in the curriculum. 

 

I mean, I obviously know what they are and how they function, but we hardly used them at all in practice.  Of course, I frequently used objects and classes from the API for common procedures.  For example, in Java to parse a text field I might use Integer.parseInt( jtextfield.getText() ).  Or to create the GUI there was always a whole series of GUI objects instantiated (i.e. randomJTextField = new JTextField() followed by the definition of its properties). 

 

But we very rarely created our own classes and objects.  Normally, the whole program was written in one class, and we would write methods (or functions) to handle different tasks and call them when needed.  As a result, my whole concept of objects is a bit fuzzy.  The few times we used them, I found the whole instantiation of objects to be somewhat confusing. 

 

Having earned a programming degree without utilizing the Object aspect of Object Oriented Programming (which seems kind of important), I can't help but feel a bit cheated.  My current view of objects is that they are not necessary to use, they are just a way of organizing your program and making it easier to re-use code.  Is this wrong? 

 

Do programming jobs out in the real world place high importance on using objects?  I am about to write a resume and start job hunting, but I am kind of concerned about my weakness in this area.  Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Object instantiation and use is a key component to OOP.  There's really no way around it in the real world.  Even in OO languages like Java or C#, where there are libraries of code/objects available for you to use, you'll inevitably need to roll your own at some point.

[Daniel0]

My current view of objects is that they are not necessary to use, [...]

 

Well, you're right, they aren't. Assembly, C, Haskell, ML, Lisp, Scheme, Prolog, etc. are all languages without an object model. "Not necessary" is not the same as "not useful" though.

[Maq]

My current view of objects is that they are not necessary to use, [...]

 

Well, you're right, they aren't. Assembly, C, Haskell, ML, Lisp, Scheme, Prolog, etc. are all languages without an object model. "Not necessary" is not the same as "not useful" though.

 

What Daniel says is very true.  But if you're looking for a job then you definitely want to learn OOP because there is a larger job market for those languages.